If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It wasn't for no reason though was it, it was partially an attempt to prevent chemical weapons being used on innocent people. Jesus, talk about oversimplification.

Ok, thanks for explaining it so well. You're smart, I can tell. That's great Obama cares so much about the fucking Syrians. Why he cares about their civil war is still open for interpretation. The US has no interest whatsoever at stake regarding their problems so the "I don't give a shit meter" with most people is pegged. I guess Obama didn't want people to think he didn't care about the world since he has done absolutely nothing to bring justice or to determine why 4 innocent AMERICANS were MURDERED in Benghazi a year ago. But, let's focus on the Syrians and their problems. Jeeezuz, it's so simple.

I'm really glad we're seemingly not going in. Sure, Putin's laughing his ass off, and we look like chumps, but I dunno. The whole thing seems like a lose-lose situation, I doubt they can (successfully, anyway) distinguish too well between the Al-Qaeda "behead the infidels!" rebels and the moderates in terms of arms, and with this conflicting message of "we have to intervene...with an 'unimaginably small shot-across-the-bow'", it kind of seems like a quagmire that's not really worth it.

Plus if we were really all that "harumph! bah! have at thee!" over the human rights abuses, we'd have gone in there 2 years ago. The chemical weapons are horrible and all, but the death toll by conventional stuff so far is so much insanely higher. And it's not like it's the first time chemical weapons have been used without any US intervention. We didn't give a shit when Saddam was gassing the Iranians. The "but if we DON'T, Iran's gonna be MORE insistent on building nukes!" stuff seems like a stretch. They're going to try their best to do that anyway.

Seems killing civilians is killing civilians, to me. It sucks, but I mean there's nothing at all Assad could ever do that would have us put US boots on the ground there. I doubt bombing a few runways and supply depots while "not trying to turn the tide of the war" would have stopped him doing whatever he was doing.

It pretty much looks like the "good rebels" are totally buttfucked by now, though. Russia's not going to organize taking away the chemical weapons without some guarantee the west doesn't help the rebels overthrow Assad. Assad stays, Russia gets to keep their naval base, and then "sure, we'll pull you out of this sinkhole with Congress."

We look like pussies, but it's a pretty small price to pay to avoid...well, doing the right thing, but at a cost that's admittedly probably not worth it. If this spills over outside Syrian borders, Turkey and Israel will deal with it.

How is this Sriya

Good explanation Eskimo. Most know little or nothing as to what is actually occurring in Syria. Let's be honest...what is the real consequence to the world with a few less Syrians anyway? Certainly nor worth one American life by any measure.

Not really what I was getting at. In a better world, morally we'd have to be in there kicking autocrat ass and saving babies from sarin.

But there argument here is "we're the only ones in the world who can enforce some type of standards and morality, fuck China and Russia 'cause they won't do it." It's not really a sound point, since we've ignored this stuff before when it suits us, and we were pretty happy to ignore 2 years of kids & minorities being blown away with bullets.

The situation's such a clusterfuck as it is, that I'm not sure "b-b-but this time it's POISON GAS!" really cuts it. Even before the chemical attacks (of which the one Obama chose to respond to wasn't even the first one), Syria was a human rights hellhole. We just did the whole "we'll write you a nasty letter" UN thing until it's become too late to really intervene without it turning into another Iraq.

Never said we shared 100% opinion. I liked your previous explanation. More and more we are going to see americans letting these shithole countries go the way of extinction...as they should if they can't unwrap their fucking heads from
their 8th century a.d. way of life and thinking. It's their country, let them fix their own problems and find their own way. If it costs them their existence, it's their issue. If they invade on our lives or progress, then it's an entirely different matter.

I generally agree with everything Eskimo said. Which seems to be happening quite a lot.

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.” – Bill Hicks

I really doubt Putin is laughing his ass off. Americans inside America are under this strange idea that the whole world is just waiting for a sign of weakness for the world to mock. Very teenage girlesque.

An ideal situation for Obama would be if he could convince Russia or the Saudis to offer the Assad family political asylum. No justice served, but it'd be the best option in terms of human lives. It'd also let other countries shoulder the burden. (Sorta like Obama's policy in Libya, very prudent.)

The US has no need to worry about its credibility (its not like the military option is covered in dust), nor its dependability (America should insist its allies shoulder more regional burdens, not the other way around.)

There are other issues at stake. A miserable record in nation building, no guarantee a humanitarian intervention would mean quality of life improvement. Also maybe if the US stopped invading middle eastern nations it'd be easier to build up more good will in the area.

And yeah the emphasis on the moral difference between bullets and chemical weapons is paper thin.

And another thing. I listened to a BBC4 doc that just chilled my blood. Appeasement IS NOT a passive foreign policy. To do nothing in Syria wouldn't be appeasement. And really, Syria isn't 1940 Germany. They are not a world power, nor do they have the means to expand their own borders (their current borders are obviously more than enough anyways.)

I really doubt Putin is laughing his ass off. Americans inside America are under this strange idea that the whole world is just waiting for a sign of weakness for the world to mock. Very teenage girlesque.

An ideal situation for Obama would be if he could convince Russia or the Saudis to offer the Assad family political asylum. No justice served, but it'd be the best option in terms of human lives. It'd also let other countries shoulder the burden. (Sorta like Obama's policy in Libya, very prudent.)

The US has no need to worry about its credibility (its not like the military option is covered in dust), nor its dependability (America should insist its allies shoulder more regional burdens, not the other way around.)

There are other issues at stake. A miserable record in nation building, no guarantee a humanitarian intervention would mean quality of life improvement. Also maybe if the US stopped invading middle eastern nations it'd be easier to build up more good will in the area.

You really don't think Putin's a little "the exception to the rule" as far as petty spitefulness among world leaders? The guy's a KGB veteran who actually admittedly looks up to Stalin and that period of Soviet influence. Any jab at the US he can make is something he's going to want to pursue, it's not really anything to do with "gossipy teenage girls", just a desire among the Russian government this past decade or so to reassert themselves, which there are plenty of argument supporting actually happening.

You can't give Assad political asylum after rattling the saber and talking the talk the way Obama and Kerry have, though. Can't/won't be done.

As for "insist on regional burdens"? Heh, worked out well this time with the UK vote. Britain left to its own devices wouldn't have done anything either way. France, highly questionable, too. NATO's comprised a huge chunk by U.S. interests anyway, so that doesn't fly.

As for the "middle eastern goodwill" thing, kinda naive. Pre-Afghanistan and Iraq we weren't seen too favorably east of Turkey, either.

Originally Posted by wheelchairman

And yeah the emphasis on the moral difference between bullets and chemical weapons is paper thin.

There's a difference, I mean I get the distinction, but that alone as a "but now we have to intervene" doesn't seem like enough, in the broader context. Especially given that they've done it at least twice before in the last year or so and we didn't so much as fart.

Originally Posted by wheelchairman

And really, Syria isn't 1940 Germany. They are not a world power, nor do they have the means to expand their own borders (their current borders are obviously more than enough anyways.)

Playing devil's advocate, Russia is though. Iran, to an extent. Syria's "theirs", and Assad prevailing through this solidifies them a little more. And, while superficial and not really amounting to a WHOLE lot, we do look worse for it all.